Patrick Burns

I can't remember all that's changed since I last heard it.... but this is GREAT! The past few years I've found myself saving mostly chill tracks from OCR, and this definitely ranks among my favorites. I think if everyone out there decided one evening to try making the most patient arrangement they could muster, they'd be surprised at how much awesomeness starts filling the spaces. The breakdown at 1:09 is a good taste of change---got those Aquatic pads fading through me, then starting around 1:50.... such a good lead coming through with a bit less attack and more wobble, snares at half time.... then right back on track like it's nothing... and the stuff around 3:00... you just the right kind of tempered climax for the mood of the tune... 3:20 you did a great job of finding a good melody to draw things down. And thanks for the pitch bended flute

MMmmmmmmmmmmyehhh

Nice... makes me want to rearrange the furniture in my little apartment

I wanted an awesome handle, I just couldn't think of one...

Yeah, typed it wrong at the top of my post, correct at the bottom. http://youtu.be/UoHbONQbJ0g

I'm gonna pull my music degree card. some right things above, some wrong. there is no modulation. so the ending riff is, as has been pointed out: Ab min, Gb maj, Db maj which is: i, VII, IV -- typical pop stuff (pedantics: I chose Ab min over G# minor cause that's easier in my head for some reason. different spellings for the same sound) At 12:04, you're expecting Ab min, but you get an Fb maj (or just a plain old E major, but as long as we're talking theory we've got to use the correct spelling for the key). So instead of an i chord we get a VI chord. sphexic, even though as Weisty pointed out, it's not a deceptive cadence--you're making a good connection ear-wise. Like with a deceptive cadence, you got 2 out of the 3 notes you were expecting to hear. Ok---now they're just riffing around the VI chord (Fb major, aka E major). The underlying harmony of what they do next is go from Fb, to Gb, back to Fb (VI, VII, VI), but as jnWake points out (and as our ears can obviously hear from the weirdness) it's not just major chords. If you want to play this part on your guitar, just play an E major chord, then slide your 3 fretting fingers up two frets and play that chord, leaving strings 1, 2, and 6 open. So what do you call that weird Gb chord? 1st string: open 2nd string: open 3rd string: 3rd fret 4th string: 4th fret 5th string: 5th fret 6th string: open Whatever you want. The underlying sound is VI to VII and back to VI, with the added benefit of holding on to some notes from the VI chord. Prog rock loves holding on to notes and smearing chords together. Theory-wise, you could use words like parallelism, pedal tone, a couple sustained notes, maybe some quartal harmony---but in any case they're all embellishments--embellishments you can thank the impressionistic composers for, in large part. ok, so far we've got i, VI, IV (repeating), then VI, VII (embellished), VI then next, at 12:17, it's not a modulation, it's just a V chord (Eb major). VI often prepares the V in minor keys, though in common practice classical harmony they use modified VI chords to avoid parallel intervals. In any case, the VI to V sound is one that has been pounded in our heads. jnWake, it's not a Neapolitan chord in this case--though I do see the connection you're trying to make. at 12:25, after dwelling on the V for a long time, we get an Ab major chord. so we just went from V to I. This is called a Picardy third, when we're in a minor key and we just make it major on the last chord. You guys are right to be hearing some modulation-esque behavior (or "temporary tonicizations" as they might be called) but they're not really there. or at least, that sound doesn't arise from the chords so much as the slowness of the harmonic tempo here and the amount of time they spend away from the tonic. By the time we get back to Ab, it doesn't really feel like home anymore. so, in total, it's just i, VI, IV (repeat) VI, VII*, VI, V, I with a little mixolydian riffing on that last I chord in Ab minor, that's: Ab minor, Fb major, Db major (repeat) Fb major, Gb major*, Fb major Eb major, Ab major in G# minor, that's: G# minor, E major, C# major (repeat) E major, F# major*, E major D# major, G# major also got to plug one of my favorite remixes:

At first, I thought this was going to be about Destiny . . . guess I'm not much of a gamer anymore carry on

Didn't expect to hear this song remixed -- love it. Had a little jam session on my way to work this morning.

In that case, yeah. On a case by case basis people are definitely inconsiderate. I just can't see a systemic unfairness for sufficiently enterprising musicians out there. The truth is that there just isn't a big market for jazz fusion, even if there's a high turnout in a campus setting. That's just cultural taste. You know, jazz exists in a weird state in our society, especially when it's supported by an academic setting. It's treated like historical reenactment or a labor of love to be revered -- and people appreciate it, but they really don't consume it on a sustainable level. (Which in turn reinforces the image of jazz as a labor of love.) I had a similar experience to yours, though I was less involved. My jazz big band in college would always have a full house for the end-of-semester concerts. The director would also occasionally take a bare bones combo out to small places he knew -- but it was always for intangibles like free food or just a good experience. I never went, personally.

I'm not arguing that exposure is valuable compensation for every act. I'm suggesting 1) exposure is valuable for large scale acts -- which we all seem to agree on anyway -- and 2) acts of a smaller scale can and should be building a brand which makes them uniquely valuable to venues and gives them leverage to actually be paid. And if they're not offered that paying gig, it's not always an insult -- it's just that they haven't demonstrated their unique value in our music-saturated culture. Yes, it would be better if all venue owners had art advocacy on their mind, but if they're more concerned with the bottom line that's their business. Acts of any size can get in on that business and require real payment by demonstrating an ability to draw a crowd to their brand. If they're not getting paid, they either 1) have poor business practices, 2) lack sufficient musical ability, or 3) have very bad luck in connecting with the right audience. Selfish venues aren't to blame. Yes, they can and should lend a helping hand from time to time, but they're not selfish for not being charitable.

I admit that I'm not much of an activist -- I usually trust that the 'right' will manifest on its own eventually. And, honestly, thank god not everyone takes that point of view. It's noble to stand up for musicians, so don't stop. I'm sure the digital age will offer creative avenues of unionization that can offer some protection of interests -- the trick is and always has been protecting the interests of the quality producers and without simultaneously proliferating the poor quality producers. The way I think of this disagreement is that I feel that the narrative "NFL doesn't pay musicians" sets off an entire story/worldview that dismisses many avenues of success and influence that musicians actually have -- the rest of this post is just me trying to argue for that perspective. You're partially right about the narrative from the NFL's and CBS's perspective -- they are a wealthy organization, the event is "theirs" to some extent, and they've got some negotiating power over smaller parties. But you're forcing that into a single-narrative, hierarchical paradigm: elevating the NFL/CBS as established powers getting off scot-free, and relegating musicians as a working class eating the big boy's table scraps. The musicians are who I want to focus on -- but another word on the Super Bowl real quick. Who knows how much the production for the half time show cost. But let's just imagine the airtime. The half time show was about 14 minutes. That's about $85,000,000 in ad revenue lost. That's not a small thing for the NFL/CBS to give up, and what they need desperately in return is pop culture, crossover, live performance gold to elevate the value of the remaining airtime. That kind of content doesn't grow on trees. They saw that potential in the Bruno Mars package, so they gave him the equivalent, in airtime, of a fortune greater than he'll probably ever make in his lifetime. There is no hierarchy here -- just two massive entities making a deal and sharing some bandwidth. Now about this from the perspective of the general musician. My thoughts also apply to what you say here: I think you're conceptualizing this way too strictly and as a result devaluing what kind of economic value musicians have. You can't just divorce a performance from content. There are different kinds of content, but the performance is just another manifestation of that content. But that's not the important idea -- what's important is that the performance is part of a constellation of assets a musician can develop, and the different assets support the other ones. People don't often think about it this way, but economically speaking, musicians are developing highly specialized intellectual capital. They aren't the laboring class, not by a long shot. Just last night a friend was telling me we had to go to a specific bar because a specific trio might be playing there -- and if they weren't playing there, we were going to go find a different bar. That's not labor -- that's not just paying someone for a performance -- that's renting someone else's branded content. Regardless of the fact that it's delivered through that night's performance, it is cultivated through many different channels over time. The gist of what I'm saying is that musicians are more than they calories they burn on stage -- both economically and artistically. The irony of this whole discussion, though, is that live performance is probably the healthiest part of the music industry these days, and it's growing -- for performers and techs alike. (As a side note, the guy who plays covers and a couple originals his whole life in the same bars, for owners who pay him as part of the atmosphere could be construed as a laborer. And if you want to be that guy, more power to you, I love you, I'll listen while I eat my french fries and be very, very happy -- but in this discussion I'm thinking of musicians who try to develop an identity that abstracts out of the venues in which they perform.)

Here's another article on what the Super Bowl appearance might do for Bruno Mars earnings But who decided we would even frame the question as though Bruno Mars was working for the NFL? Why isn't the NFL working for Bruno Mars in this situation? Bruno already had a tour set up and will have to foot a bill of ~$100,000 on each stop of the tour just to turn the lights on. Suddenly he gets to kick off that tour with a pre-sold-out stadium, world-class production, 100+ million watching on TV, and tons of press -- all without having to pay for it. Why aren't we asking why Bruno Mars isn't paying the NFL or CBS? Because we select a couple facts about the situation -- Bruno playing for no money -- and project our personal struggles on to it. Nobody is 'working' for anyone here. They're independent entities entering into voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements. I know this is going to sound borderline fascist, but I can't stand this subjugated, working man mentality of us immediately identifying with the musician and assuming he's working for the man. We're better than that. I think it's insulting to view musicians like pack animals that should be paid because they work really hard. When people like your stuff -- whether that's record execs, preteen girls, music critics, radio program directors, or art foundations -- you'll get paid when you can communicate with those people and get on a platform in front of them. When I was in school I mixed live sound for bands at a bar on campus. We had a bunch of different acts come through. I did sound for this one band who had been traveling all over the US for years playing dinky venues. I watched them play for a crowd of sometimes just 4 or 5 people (and still getting into it just as much). I even saw them ask for donations through their mailing list when their van got broken into and their instruments were stolen. After a couple home-recorded albums they sold out of a suitcase at their shows, they got out a more professionally recorded EP. A year or two later and that EP spawned , they performed at the Grammy's, and they're touring the world. Of course, all the other bands I mixed for are still puttering around local venues or disbanded.Employees sign up, show up, and do what they're told. They have a living wage, and this safety net comes with a ceiling. That mindset doesn't work with art. Art needs risk -- Prometheus and Icarus . . .

There's access to more music today than anyone knows what to do with. And while I know being an artist has a lot do with love of fellowship, beauty, emotional honesty, etc . . . the truth is that anyone who expects the world to support them as a musician today is being childish. The world's got bigger problems than supporting us while we make the air vibrate with our feelings, and it's up to us to get our business in order and show people the value we offer as a supplier of an overabundant resource.

Not an album (although it's part of one, obviously) but I love this one: Survivors by virt And here's the rest of the album: http://www.8bitpeoples.com/discography/by/virt I'm not really a fan of chip tune for the sake of chip tune, but this one is oozing with atmosphere, and I think it would have LESS atmosphere if it weren't a chip tune.

Yes -- after beating the game I looked for remixes and was very pleased to find this one by Hy Bound: http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02157/. Scanning for minerals and elements and reading about the planets would have been so lifeless without that BGM.

Nice collection. I'm having trouble scrolling on the homepage, though. I can't see all the albums as they stack to the right, and I can't scroll to see them. I can only make the window bigger, and that only goes so far. I'm using Safari 6.1.1 edit: looks like that's how it's supposed to be, seeing as how you can access the albums on other submenus. nvm

So I didn't play games at all during 2013 . . . until December when I replayed a gateway drug: KOTOR. After beating that again, I played . . . Gone Home: played it at night in an empty house with headphones on. Loved it. Probably not game of the year material, but it was so cool feeling such an intact story, atmosphere, 90s-setting. Not for everyone, but worth it if you even suspect it's for you. Bioshock Infinite: Such a beautiful, intricate universe they've put together. Personally, this kind of FPS action is running a little thin for me after all these years, but I loved the characters. And I loved how the ending just kept on going. Honestly, it took me awhile to piece the narrative together. The religious fervor on display, especially during Booker's first moments in Columbia with the spiritual music echoing in the background, was awesome -- especially for a kid like me from the Bible belt. Tomb Raider: Went by a Red Box to continue feeding my binge. It was this or COD Black Ops, so I chose Croft. I'm really getting into third-person action. It was cool having an island to explore, variety (viable variety) in dispatching enemies, and a story that was willing to go some dark places -- right from the beginning. Obvious choice if you liked Uncharted. Two Brothers: mildly engaging gameplay for me, and the puzzles seemed a bit too easy sometimes. (The rope sequence was an amazingly fun exception.) But I was clay in the hands of the rest of the game. Tears, lump in the throat, appreciation to the devs . . . I got it on sale for $5. Best $5 I've ever spent. Mass Effect: as much as I loved KOTOR, I decided it was time to catch up on this trilogy. Finished 1, and 2 is now in the mail. The shooting and cover mechanics were a little annoying, and the occasional geometry or button glitches really bugged me, but the universe was great. I loved reading the codex and trying to get all the information from conversations. Honestly, paragon Shepherd seemed like an airhead no matter which choices were available. Not something I would replay, but I hear ME:2 improved a lot of the weak spots of 1, so we'll see.

a nice change in soundscape. enjoyed it

- settle back to 160 lbs and running 6 mi/week (this past year, I went from 180 to 150 and back up; sedentary to 15 mi/week and back to nothing) - get over some paralyzing idealism, make some music, and finish original project

Went through my library and found some that had graced my running playlists Ziwtra - Skyline - http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01038/ Ziwtra - Willed Assault - http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01012/ Ben Briggs - Bubble Junkie - http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02221/ Rellik - Mirror and Transparent - http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01475/ Zircon - Monstrous Turtles - http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01558/ Bazooie - Wizards & Warriors - http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01034/

Thanks, but I'm only as valuable as my remix . . . and it is a little dated and cutesy. I'm not sure what I'll do. I'm happy for it being in the album -- I think it has more to contribute as part of a 'Golden Sun event' rather than a single remix event. I'll post if I update it or want to claim another one alongside. I'll PM you.

Very happy to see this coming back to life. Also, when the time comes, I'll totally do the dirty work of guilting people into finishing their tracks. My happy towns track has been waiting 3 years to see the light of day, AND IT'S REMIX ANGRY. God speed

From your description, I'd say you're well on your way. I hate the feeling, hate it hate it. It's like the opposite of music. I've done a fair amount of performing over the years, and I've never been comfortable. Especially performing classical -- it's just so stuffy. This is me a few years ago: http://youtu.be/qwS5GkGf_3I?t=7m4s -- these days, I'm a bit over the classical scene. I'm just happier playing casual songs casually for casual friends. I don't know what the best answer is. Practice, obviously, but other things help too. The best realization I ever had was knowing this: you really have to feel like you have something to share. To that end, arrogance can work. If that's not your cup of tea, you can embrace a more idealistic perspective -- whatever those feelings are that got you into music and kept you coming back, other people desperately need that. They may not know it, they may not help you share it, but you've got it and you better figure out a way to get through. Of course, you need to have songs that make you feel that way. And know your songs by muscle and ear, inside and out. Everything else -- whatever mental or visual queues you've got to help you remember and get through a song, they melt away when you're nervous. But then again, all these "you should do this" pieces of advice could serve to paralyze you too. In that case, just find the fun.

The virtues of theory aside, I think Shariq or Larry would be happy to post a legit test show on the subject if anyone has the time to try making one and sending it to them. At that point viewer response would settle the issue. (My personal prediction is that very few of the channel subscribers would be interested in just theory, and those of us that are interested in theory would just argue analyses and semantics in the comments.) But, theory or not, I like the emphasis on making 'outward' content -- not just covering everything happening in the community or remixing remix, if you will. I'm just having trouble coming up with an idea that is outward, music-oriented, but also DMCA-streamlined. I'm reading some informal stuff that says using less than 10% and no more than 30 seconds of material for editorial use is considered fair use. That would provide enough wiggle room, I think, for a show that looks at OSTs. . . but real legal issues aren't the problem. YouTube's content filters, user complaints, and the integrity of the youtube account are the immediate issues. My guess is that all one can do is try and see what happens in that regard.

Yeah -- I'm sure one could get away with fair use on brief clips ... But I don't think anyone would want to learn about soundtracks or break down tunes without hearing a longer portion of them. Licensing would be too much work, covering them on the video would be too much work for all but a few with quick ears, and even just trying to post the actual music -- for more modern soundtracks -- risks getting infringement marks on the account. Hmm